If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

Heh heh, there has been talk about that for Greensboro PD but nothing too serious. Any officer (patrol at least and other field units) can already qualify with their own AR-15 and carry it as their patrol rifle and I don't think it has to stay in the trunk.

As for license plate readers, GPD has tested some of that already, much to their satisfaction. Now if they plan on buying units and putting into service, I don't know.

imported post

What's wrong with the police having AR-15s? With the types of threats that are present now, the police sometimes need a little more firepower than a pistol or a shotgun. After all, isn't the purpose of a handgun to fight your way to your rifle? Back in the day, I'm sure the high capacity(for then) pump shotgun was the AR-15 of it's time.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

imported post

Adam H wrote:

What's wrong with the police having AR-15s? With the types of threats that are present now, the police sometimes need a little more firepower than a pistol or a shotgun. After all, isn't the purpose of a handgun to fight your way to your rifle? Back in the day, I'm sure the high capacity(for then) pump shotgun was the AR-15 of it's time.

When it takes 50+ shots at twenty feet to hit something you don't want to have
them spraying rifle rounds that can travel into all sorts of things and people.
Plus they cannot be held accountable when they do spray the daycare down the
block with bullets.
more firepower + power trip = PROBLEMS!

On the plus side, they do tend to leave them laying around so you can pick it up
and keep it for yourself. And since you pay taxes you have technically paid for it.

imported post

The problem with it is that:
1) Greenville PD have a notorious reputation in NC for being over-reactive toward ANY civilian who is legally carrying,

2) Greenville is a college town, and as egregiously invasive and Constitution-trampling as ECU Campus Police are, GPD has been know to overstep their bounds with even more offensive attitudes, and

3) Greenville is a city. AR-15's are rifles with a lethal range of close to 1 mile. With the average round-fired-to-hit ratio of Police in the USA (according to the DOJ) somewhere around 4 to 1, that is the potential for a LOT of stray rifle rounds downrange, in neighborhoods, schools, shopping plazas and college property. If the Sheriff wants them, that's one thing (they patrol the rural areas, and have to deal with things like feral dogs, mountain lions, and bears), but in a city the size of Greenville, I just don't see any tactical, operational, or even financial reason they needed to spend that money on firearms that are so egregiously unsuited to their environment and operational requirements.

With the types of threats that are present now, the police sometimes need a little more firepower than a pistol or a shotgun.

According to the most recent DOJ and FBI statistics, violent crime has been on a steady DOWN trend for the last 10 years, and has seen dramatic drops in the last 3 years. Violent crime is, in fact, at a record nationwide LOW. According to the government's own statistics, violent crime hasn't been this low, on average, in over 30 years.

The police (and the public) are actually LESS likely to meet up with violent crime today than at any time since the 1960's

The only places there has been a significant up-trend in violent crime are locales with unreasonably tough firearms laws (Baltimore, Chicago, LA, DC) and "sanctuary cities" (Phoenix &amp; Tuscon AZ, Denver CO, most of the big cities in CA, New Haven CT, Cambridge MA, Montgomery County MD, Fairfax County VA, etc). The VAST majority of cities, towns, counties, and states are actually seeing their lowest violent crime rates in nearly 3 decades.

Heck, even the bloody streets of Baltimore MD saw a 25% reduction in violent crime last year. (Of course, even with that drop, they are still nearly 3 times as high as the national average, and nearly 12 times higher than the lowest rates in the country, but it's something, eh?)

There is simply NO reason for police in a small town like Greenville to be carrying a rifle like an AR-15 in their cruiser as standard issue. It is tactically inferior for crowd control, it has a far greater lethality range when a round misses it's target, it is more prone to over-penetrate and endanger innocent bystanders, it is MUCH more attractive for thieves, and it is essentially a "one-trick pony".

A 12ga shotgun, on the other hand, has limited range (thereby, making is MUCH safer to use in urban settings) can chamber and fire both lethal and "less-than-lethal" rounds (like beanbags, rubber bullets, or even teargas rounds) and can be used as a breaching tool. A rifle can do NONE of these things. Shotguns are more tactically versatile than rifles in urban settings. Period. End of discussion.

The ONLY reason they "need" AR15s is so that when they get out of their cruisers, they can look even MORE menacing, and people will be even less likely to stand up for their rights when the police "cross the line". This has NOTHING to do with "officer safety" and EVERYTHING to do with the further militarization of civilian law enforcement, and intimidation of the public.

Open Carry will become an ENTIRELY different "game" if this trend spreads. Imagine two power-hungry officers, who believe that their "monopoly on force" is actually legitimate, show up for your next MWAG call toting a couple AR-15s. This will change the dynamic DRAMATICALLY, and I for one, do NOT want to have to explain why I'm engaged in a perfectly legal and lawful activity while staring down a .223 cal barrel with 20 rounds and an itchy trigger finger behind it.

imported post

With all of this said, the crime being down, etc. I guess everyone could say the same about people who open carry, carry spare magazines, even a back-up pistol. Why? Crime is down, etc.

Point is, we as citizens have our rights and expect them to be respected, shouldn't the same be said for LEO's? If we say no, then we are just putting ourselves as low as those who want to remove our rights, does it not?

Maybe them having ARs is justified, maybe not. I cant make that call as I haven't walked in their shoes. Maybe if there are that few that do have itchy trigger fingers, can not the same be said from their point of view about citizens with guns as well?

The best proof that being equally armed works was the cold war. If every one who has the money can go buy an AR, or any other type of rife as such, then why not the LEOs? We do not want to be under-armed as citizens, the same can be said for the other side of the scale. We would be very hypocritical to say that its just the LEO's who may have an itchy trigger finger or who are bullies, etc., and not admitt there are a few that are like that "on our side" (for a lack of better description).

All I am saying is that rights and wanting to be armed and protected is not just a one way street.

imported post

Rat402,

I don't care that GPD is heavily armed. I spend a lot of time in Greenville, and believe me, that city has it's issues with crime.

My point is that a rifle is just not a practical,appropriate, or useful firearm for a street cop in a city like Greenville. Rifles are "1-trick ponies" when it comes to this sort of application, and they only serve one purpose (and it is NOT about more effective or efficient performance of their "duties")--shock and awe. The ubiquitous 12ga shotgun is WAY more useful and versatile, and replacing their shotguns with rifles does nothing for them in terms of effective law enforcement except allowing them to present a more menacing profile to the public when responding to calls...

If they had spent the money on new Benelli M-4 semi-auto tactical shotguns, I wouldn't have anything to say about it except to compliment their wise use of their money.

And besides they already carry Glocks and 2 spare mags on their belts, not to mention Tazers and OC...

As for your reasoning that my complaining about their rifles should apply to OCers, that just makes no sense. First off, the police (as agents of the state) do NOT have "rights" per se, so the 2A doesn't really apply to them. And secondly, studies by folks like John Lott have demonstrated that it is BECAUSE of OC, CC and increased firearms ownership that violent crime is down.

When the economy tanks like it has been for the last 2 or 3 years, violent crime has historically trended up nation wide. But DESPITE the depression we are currently suffering (with real unemployment reaching nearly 20%), and record firearms sales for the last 3 years, crime is down in almost every region of the US (with the glaring exceptions of DC, Baltimore, Chicago, and CA). According to interviews and polls done with incarcerated felons, people who are OCing, CCing and homeowners who own firearms are one of the main reasons they are not committing as much violent personal crime, and it is causing criminals to put a lot more effort into choosing their targets--people who they KNOW are not armed and able to defend themselves.

If the people of Greenville want to feel safer, they should buy a big dog and a few firearms and get trained in their use. Allowing the local police to evolve into a paramilitary unit simply CANNOT increase freedom, safety, and overall liberty.

We need to remember that police are NOT there to keep the public safe--this has been established and reinforced time and time again by the US Supreme Court.

But the "dirty little secret" of the TRUE duty of local police that nobody seems to want to talk about is that their REAL "duty" is to preserve the Corporation that is their employer--their City Government. Which makes them, by definition, a paramilitary arm of the State. We need to remember that. They are there to preserve the Corporation...

Chip, chip, chip goes our rights. Am I the only person who hears it?

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
–Mark Twain

imported post

All I am saying is that rights and wanting to be armed and protected is not just a one way street.

Police have no "right" to do anything while on the job, except not be murdered etc.

Do cashiers at McDonald's have a right to open carry, or does McDonald's have a right to say "you can own a gun but we'd rather you not have it while serving burgers. If you want a paycheck, anyway."?

Edit: Then there is the fact, as Dreamer pointed out, that as agents of the state their rights are further restricted beyond merely whatever stipulations their employer may emplace, but by laws designed to limit their authority.

For example, police have no assumption of, or right to, privacy while on-duty, so they may be voice- or video-recorded at will. This is to ensure accountability and transparency of our public servants' actions.

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

When the economy tanks like it has been for the last 2 or 3 years, violent crime has historically trended up nation wide. But DESPITE the depression we are currently suffering (with real unemployment reaching nearly 20%), and record firearms sales for the last 3 years, crime is down in almost every region of the US (with the glaring exceptions of DC, Baltimore, Chicago, and CA). According to interviews and polls done with incarcerated felons, people who are OCing, CCing and homeowners who own firearms are one of the main reasons they are not committing as much violent personal crime, and it is causing criminals to put a lot more effort into choosing their targets--people who they KNOW are not armed and able to defend themselves.

Exactly. Decades of ramping-up of police militarization and armament have only worsened violent crime.

Then citizens start to arm themselves (when using the scale which allows looking back to the 60s era levels of low crime, this trend actually started in the 90s) and finally crime can be seen to go down (also started in the 90s but can really be felt today).

There is no reason for police to have anything but the barest essentials of armament. I'm inclined to say for firearms a handgun (and/or a rifle in rural areas) locked in the trunk is plenty (with more backup at the station).

Citizens, on the other hand, have every reason to be thoroughly armed. The tax dollars which feed the expansion of police weaponry would be better spent on giving citizens gun vouchers!

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

But the "dirty little secret" of the TRUE duty of local police that nobody seems to want to talk about is that their REAL "duty" is to preserve the Corporation that is their employer--their City Government. Which makes them, by definition, a paramilitary arm of the State. We need to remember that. They are there to preserve the Corporation...

Chip, chip, chip goes our rights. Am I the only person who hears it?

Five by five. I think I may have a sixth sense which is tuned to precisely this frequency.

imported post

In defense of the state it is a fact that while violent crimes among the citizens are decreasing the threat of domestic and foreign terrorism is on high alert with a suspected number of cells that are heavily armed. An officer would be out gunned with only a side arm and a shotgun facing a group of terrorist with high powered and long range weapons.

Do not be afraid of the powers that exist they are ordained ministers to reward the good citizen and punish the evil. The law abiding citizens and LEO can cooperate for the good of all citizens.

imported post

American Patriot wrote:

In defense of the state it is a fact that while violent crimes among the citizens are decreasing the threat of domestic and foreign terrorism is on high alert with a suspected number of cells that are heavily armed.Â*Â* An officer would be out gunned with only a side arm and a shotgun facing a group of terrorist with high powered and long range weapons.

Do not be afraid of the powers that exist they are ordained ministers to reward the good citizen and punish the evil.Â* The law abiding citizens and LEO can cooperate for the good of all citizens.Â*Â*

I doubt that a town like Greenville will be the next terrorist target. And just because LEO are ordained ministers to reward the good and punish the evil doesn't mean that they all follow this.

imported post

American Patriot wrote:

I didn't suggest either of your points.Â*Â* I suggest that law abiding citizens cooperate with LEO.Â*

I was merely stating that in Greenville, which is the topic at hand, there is very very little chance of a terrorist attack, and therefore little need for AR-15 rifles. I believe it was Dreamer who stated that shotguns are much more effective in this urban type environment. And as for LEOs and citizens, there are a good few stories of law abiding citizens being victimized by LEO. So therefore the LEO don't always reward the good and OC is a prime example of this. BTW, I meant no disrespect to you in either of these posts.

imported post

SMW no problem whatsoever. I have been to Greenville many times. The people there need just as good protection that is available. I do not see terrorist bypassing any opportunity that presents itself. The local LE here are geared up for the unexpected. What difference would there be, in hitting a large number of citizens in Greenville or even a smaller or larger town, in the mind of a terrorist. I suspect if and when there are attacks they will be numerous from many fronts.

Even an incident in LA a few years back there was a bank robber suited in a bullet proof vest and had the officers out gunned with his AR15. I personally see no problem with LE having a variety of high powered weapons suited to the situation. I can invision their having aneed for a 50 caliber sniper rifle.

Sure there are officers that make frivious charges, some mistakenly, some deliberately but the vast majority do not. Even citizens make bad mistakes but not all citizens are suspect. The law abiding citizens should have no fear when they see an officer with a high powered rifle even in a small town.Just as othercitizensshould have no fear when they see another citizen wearing a side arm.

imported post

I'm not trying to argue that they don't need AR-15s at all, but I do think that having them standard issue to be kept in the cab with the officers is going to far. Keeping them in reserve for backup or even locked in the trunk seems better to me at least.

imported post

Although it does bring to question. In an urban gun fight would you want an AR-15
or the AR15 pistol?
Will they really be AR-15's or will they have selector switches? Wouldn't be the first
time they lie to the ignorant media to sneak them through.
We stop the cold war arms race to support home grown arms race, the man is a
complete nut job I fear. Shouldn't the same logic work in the US. Go back to 38's
and the bad guys will line up and admit their guilt.

Most important, when do I get mine so I can be part of the Obama Civilian Force
that outguns the military? Just got my brown shirt cleaned.

imported post

Do not be afraid of the powers that exist they are ordained ministers to reward the good citizen and punish the evil

I refuse to believe that they are here as ordained ministers when they have no duty whatsoever to protect anyone at all.

I will also be afraid of powers that grab for more power. As dreamer stated, greenville is not the place to have an AR-15 be standard issue. yes, have them in reserve. Not standard issue. Having greenville PD be assigned an AR-15 as standard issue equipment is only going to cause problems in the long run.

Chip, chip, chip goes our rights. Am I the only person who hears it?

Your not alone in this.

Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.